JADEWELL PARKING SYSTEM CORPORATION

VS LIDUA, SR
(706 SCRA 724, 7 OCTOBER 2013)

FACTS:

Jadewell, pursuant to City Ordinance 003-2000, was authorized to render any

motor vehicle immobilized by placing its wheels in a clamp if the vehicle is illegally
parked. Balajadia and the other respondents dismantled, took and carried away
the clamps attached to the wheel of the vehicles, which took place on May 7,
2003. Jadewell filed acomplaint for robbery against the respondents with the
Office of the City Prosecutor on May 23,2003. However, the Informations were
filed with the MTC on October 2, 2003. Balajadia filed amotion to quash. The MTC
granted the motion to quash and dismissed the case and Jadewell subsequent
motion for reconsideration. Jadewell’s petition for certiorari with RTC was
likewise denied. Their motion for reconsideration was also denied. They argued
that the filing of the criminal complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Baguio City, not the filing of the criminal information before Court, is the
reckoning point in determining whether or not the criminal action had prescribed.
Respondents argued that Zaldivia v. Reyes held that the proceedings mentioned
in Section 2 of Act No. 3326, as amended, refer to judicial proceedings. Thus, the
SC, in Zaldivia held that the filing of the Complaint with the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor was not a judicial proceeding. The prescriptive period commenced
from the alleged date of the commission of the crime on May 7, 2003 and ended
two months after on July 7, 2003.

ISSUE:
Whether the filing of the Complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor on May
23,2003 tolled the prescription period of the commission of the offense

HELD:
No. As provided in the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, only the filing of an
Information tolls the prescriptive period where the crime charged is involved in an
ordinance. It stands that the doctrine of Zaldivia is applicable to ordinances and
their prescription period. It also upholds the necessity of filing the Information in
court in order to toll the period. Zaldivia also has this to say concerning the effects
of its ruling: The Court realizes that under the above interpretation, a crime may
prescribe even if the complaint is filed seasonably with the prosecutor’s office if,
intentionally or not, he delays the institution of the necessary judicial proceedings
until it is too late. However, that possibility should not justify a misreading of the
applicable rules beyond their obvious intent as reasonably deduced from their
plain language. The remedy is not a distortion of the meaning of the rules but a
rewording thereof to prevent the problem here sought to be corrected.